From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E6F7C433EF for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 00:16:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B17E60FF2 for ; Mon, 18 Oct 2021 00:16:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1344847AbhJRATH (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Oct 2021 20:19:07 -0400 Received: from alexa-out.qualcomm.com ([129.46.98.28]:63651 "EHLO alexa-out.qualcomm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1344846AbhJRATH (ORCPT ); Sun, 17 Oct 2021 20:19:07 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=quicinc.com; i=@quicinc.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1634516217; x=1666052217; h=subject:from:to:cc:references:message-id:date: mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=+DqZghC6e7EKUymLWMHM4xicG8Jx1RULn6GiJV197L8=; b=BvTemcqyXMWDxn/ueVvV2wbLB3rCKRc97SuhpBS0C2IGzvhl8wWk4mZH 2s7dt0Dw0UK6rXHx6lJN9Awz2ecuwnI5H6yt5qGY9gk0nfheP//3QgmeF DZRWlY7BeBqcival50w8LTZu/WnV+OpIxT6A3rGCIPQOLo3q6fPcq5uKr w=; Received: from ironmsg08-lv.qualcomm.com ([10.47.202.152]) by alexa-out.qualcomm.com with ESMTP; 17 Oct 2021 17:16:56 -0700 X-QCInternal: smtphost Received: from nalasex01c.na.qualcomm.com ([10.47.97.35]) by ironmsg08-lv.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 17 Oct 2021 17:16:56 -0700 Received: from [10.231.205.174] (10.80.80.8) by nalasex01c.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.97.35) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id 15.2.922.7; Sun, 17 Oct 2021 17:16:54 -0700 Subject: Re: [RESEND PATCH v1 1/9] spmi: pmic-arb: add a print in cleanup_irq From: Fenglin Wu To: Stephen Boyd , , CC: , , Abhijeet Dharmapurikar References: <1631860384-26608-1-git-send-email-quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com> <1631860384-26608-2-git-send-email-quic_fenglinw@quicinc.com> <163406078422.936959.12726677103787301939@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> <6c91a6ad-0ff2-a431-138a-2ec83f2bfa74@quicinc.com> <163415372158.936959.16897606198271075227@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> <163426014715.936959.6136985763712059359@swboyd.mtv.corp.google.com> <83fa65c8-3442-ee26-22ed-e26b013cca14@quicinc.com> Message-ID: <456da380-e613-14dc-6e42-5d6350dc2389@quicinc.com> Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2021 08:16:52 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <83fa65c8-3442-ee26-22ed-e26b013cca14@quicinc.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8] X-ClientProxiedBy: nasanex01b.na.qualcomm.com (10.46.141.250) To nalasex01c.na.qualcomm.com (10.47.97.35) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-arm-msm@vger.kernel.org On 10/15/2021 9:27 AM, Fenglin Wu wrote: > > On 10/15/2021 9:09 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >> Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-10-13 19:26:55) >>> On 10/14/2021 3:35 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>>> Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-10-12 21:15:42) >>>>> On 10/13/2021 1:46 AM, Stephen Boyd wrote: >>>>>> Quoting Fenglin Wu (2021-09-16 23:32:56) >>>>>>> From: Abhijeet Dharmapurikar >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The cleanup_irq() was meant to clear and mask interrupts that were >>>>>>> left enabled in the hardware but there was no interrupt handler >>>>>>> registered for it. Add an error print when it gets invoked. >>>>>> Why? Don't we get the genirq spurious irq message in this scenario? >>>>> Thanks for reviewing the change. >>>>> >>>>> No, there is no existing message printed out in this special case >>>>> ( IRQ >>>>> fired for not registered interrupt). >>>> Ah I see so the irq doesn't have a flow handler? Shouldn't you call >>>> handle_bad_irq() in this case so we get a irq descriptor print? >>> In such case, the irq number is not valid and there won't be a valid >>> irq_desc, hence it's not possible to call handle_bad_irq() here. >> I mean handle_bad_irq() on the irqdesc for the spmi pmic arb chained >> irq. Because things are not good with the chained irq. > Okay, how about this, Update periph_interrupt() function with a return > value, and return -EINVAL once an invalid IRQ is detected. In > pmic_arb_chained_irq(), call handle_bad_irq() if periph_interrupt() > returned -EINVAL. Combined with your comments in "[PATCH v1 3/9] spmi: pmic-arb:check apid againstlimits before calling irq handler",it seemslike that it can be a independentpatch for handling spuriousinterrupt, something like this in my mind: diff --git a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c index 295e19f..bd01ad4 100644 --- a/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c +++ b/drivers/spmi/spmi-pmic-arb.c @@ -504,10 +504,10 @@ static void cleanup_irq(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb, u16 apid, int id)                                 irq_mask, ppid);  } -static void periph_interrupt(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb, u16 apid) +static int periph_interrupt(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb, u16 apid)  {         unsigned int irq; -       u32 status, id; +       u32 status, id, handled = 0;         u8 sid = (pmic_arb->apid_data[apid].ppid >> 8) & 0xF;         u8 per = pmic_arb->apid_data[apid].ppid & 0xFF; @@ -522,7 +522,10 @@ static void periph_interrupt(struct spmi_pmic_arb *pmic_arb, u16 apid)                         continue;                 }                 generic_handle_irq(irq); +               handled++;         } + +       return (handled == 0) ? -EINVAL : 0;  }  static void pmic_arb_chained_irq(struct irq_desc *desc) @@ -533,7 +536,7 @@ static void pmic_arb_chained_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)         int first = pmic_arb->min_apid >> 5;         int last = pmic_arb->max_apid >> 5;         u8 ee = pmic_arb->ee; -       u32 status, enable; +       u32 status, enable, handled = 0;         int i, id, apid;         chained_irq_enter(chip, desc); @@ -548,10 +551,14 @@ static void pmic_arb_chained_irq(struct irq_desc *desc)                         enable = readl_relaxed( ver_ops->acc_enable(pmic_arb, apid));                         if (enable & SPMI_PIC_ACC_ENABLE_BIT) - periph_interrupt(pmic_arb, apid); +                               if (periph_interrupt(pmic_arb, apid) == 0) + handled++;                 }         } +       if (handled == 0) +               handle_bad_irq(desc); +         chained_irq_exit(chip, desc);  } Is this what you expected? The original patch is only for printing a debug message when any sub-irq is detected as enabled but not registered, some other sub-IRQ maybe still valid and be handled after that, which means the chained-irq may still be a good one.Should I keep the original patch unchanged and submit a separate one to handle the spuriousinterrupt?